Though the non-rodent sample size is small (n=135), a few subsistence observations can be made. Taxa apparently serving as food sources include domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) (n=8), cow (cf. Bos taurus) (n=8), domestic pig (Sus scrofa) (n=6). The chicken coracoid shows a transverse cut mark on its shaft. Two additional large bird elements may also represent chicken, and the majority of the mammal bones are very likely cow (Baker 1995:2). In fact, the presence of vertebrae and vertebral ends of left ribs of a sub-adult cow appear to represent a rib cut from a left side of beef similar to specimens illustrated by Lyman (1977:70; Fig. 7j). None of these specimens are sawed, though many show green bone fractures that may have resulted from butchering. Pig bones exhibit cut marks and spiral fractures characteristic of food remains (Presley 1995:2).
Undoubtedly, many of the other specimens are probably food items as well, but a medium-sized mammal (dog-sized) rib remains difficult to interpret. A sub-adult goat-sized artiodactyl metapodial is also present in the sample. Baker (1995:2) believes that the majority of the mammal remains are representative of sub-adult individuals.
Fig. 45. Animal bones, some with butcher marks, indicate food sources available on the ship. Left are cow, right top upper two are chicken, and lower two are pig.
The non-fish specimens represented in this assemblage, with exception of the Scolopacid element, can be safely described as food remains. Further, specimens within these taxa also exhibit rodent gnawing; thus, these specimens must have been available for the stowaway rats to gnaw.
In contrast, none of the fish elements exhibit cut marks, spiral fractures, or rodent gnawing. The majority of these remains show very little degradation and most appear very recent suggesting that they are intrusive (Baker 1995:2; Presley 1995:1). The remaining bird and mammal remains, in contrast, appear associated with the ship. The identifiable taxa present in this assemblage can all be found in the Gulf of Mexico (Presley 1995:2; Briggs 1958). This is not to say that the crew or passengers on the vessel did not eat fish, only that clearly defined food remains could not be identified among the fish elements.